Pro-Life Arguments #2

Summary

The video script explores the 'future like ours' argument in the abortion debate, presented by Don Marquis. It challenges viewers to consider the moral implications of killing based on the deprivation of a valuable future. The argument is applied to various individuals, from fetuses to comatose adults, to establish a commonality in the wrongness of killing. Despite its ingenuity, the script points out potential flaws, such as the argument's implications for sperm and ova, and the development of consciousness in fetuses, suggesting that only a unified consciousness can truly possess a valuable future.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The speaker presents a pro-life argument while identifying as pro-choice, highlighting the complexity of the debate.
• 🧠 The argument by Don Marquis is introduced, which focuses on the 'wrongness of killing' and its relation to the value of a future like ours.
• 👶 The argument is structured around comparing different individuals: a fetus, an infant, a suicidal teenager, a temporarily comatose adult, and a conscious adult.
• 🚫 There is general agreement on the right to life for all individuals except the fetus, which is the point of contention.
• 🔍 Marquis explores various reasons why killing might be wrong, ultimately focusing on the deprivation of a valuable future.
• 🌟 The 'future like ours' argument posits that killing is wrong because it deprives individuals of their future experiences and joys.
• 🤰 The argument is then applied to fetuses, suggesting that if they have a valuable future, it is wrong to kill them, implying the immorality of most abortions.
• 🤨 The speaker points out potential flaws in the argument, such as its implications for the moral status of sperm and ova.
• 🧬 The argument raises questions about when a fetus develops the capacity for desires and a unified consciousness, which are key to having a valuable future.
• 🧐 The discussion suggests that only entities with a unified consciousness might have a valuable future, which could challenge the application of the argument to early-stage fetuses.
• 🔄 The argument is critiqued for potentially classifying biological entities, like cells, as having a valuable future, which is not consistent with our understanding of consciousness and value.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented by Don Marquis in the transcript?

Don Marquis presents the 'future-like-ours' argument, which posits that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future. He suggests that if fetuses have a valuable future like other individuals such as infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and conscious adults, then killing fetuses is also wrong.

Why does the speaker find Marquis' argument fascinating despite being pro-choice?

The speaker finds Marquis' argument fascinating because it is a well-constructed and ingenious way to approach the abortion debate. It avoids common pitfalls of other pro-life arguments and provides a novel perspective by focusing on the concept of a valuable future.

What are the five different individuals Marquis asks us to consider in his argument?

Marquis asks us to consider a fetus, an infant, a suicidal teenager, a temporarily comatose adult, and a conscious adult (you or me) to explore the concept of the right to life and the wrongness of killing.

How does Marquis differentiate the wrongness of killing from the effects it has on the killer or others?

Marquis argues that killing is wrong not because it brutalizes the killer or hurts someone else, but because it takes away a valuable future from the person being killed. He emphasizes that the wrongness lies in the deprivation of future experiences and joys.

What is the 'valuable future like ours' argument, and why is it significant in the context of the abortion debate?

The 'valuable future like ours' argument, or the 'future-like-ours' argument, is significant because it attempts to establish a moral reason against killing based on the loss of a valuable future. In the context of the abortion debate, it suggests that if fetuses have a valuable future, then abortion would be morally wrong.

What are some potential problems with Marquis' argument as mentioned in the transcript?

Some potential problems include the difficulty of applying the argument to zygotes without also applying it to sperm and ova, the issue of fetuses not having desires until a certain stage of brain development, and the question of whether biology itself has a valuable future or if it's only the conscious mind that does.

Why might the argument not apply to sperm and ova according to the transcript?

The argument might not apply to sperm and ova because all it would take for them to have a valuable future is to be joined with each other, which could imply that killing either is also morally wrong, leading to a reductio ad absurdum.

What is the significance of the development of brain activity in the context of Marquis' argument?

In Marquis' argument, the development of brain activity, particularly in the cerebral cortex, is significant because it is associated with the capacity to have desires and a valuable future. Fetuses lack this capacity until around 25 to 32 weeks, which could make the majority of abortions morally permissible according to his argument.

How does the concept of 'unified consciousness' challenge Marquis' argument as presented in the transcript?

The concept of 'unified consciousness' challenges Marquis' argument by suggesting that only entities with a unified consciousness that can value something have a valuable future. Since fetuses lack this consciousness, especially before a certain stage of development, it implies that they do not have a valuable future in the same way, and thus the argument against abortion on these grounds may not hold.

What is the speaker's conclusion about Marquis' argument in the context of the abortion debate?

The speaker concludes that while Marquis' argument is smart and interesting, it has serious problems, particularly when considering the stages of fetal development and the nature of consciousness. The argument may not convincingly establish that all abortions are morally wrong.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Exploring the 'Future Like Ours' Argument

The paragraph introduces a pro-life argument presented by Don Marquis, which is acknowledged as compelling even by those who are pro-choice. The argument prompts consideration of five different entities: a fetus, an infant, a suicidal teenager, a temporarily comatose adult, and a conscious adult. The debate typically centers on whether fetuses have a right to life, while there's general agreement on the right to life for the other four entities. Marquis suggests that the wrongness of killing stems from the deprivation of a valuable future, which is a common feature among the latter four entities. The argument is structured to first establish what makes killing generally wrong and then to apply this to the case of fetuses, proposing that if fetuses possess the same property that makes killing wrong for the other entities, then killing fetuses is also wrong.

05:01

🧠 The Valuable Future and Its Implications

This paragraph delves into the concept that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future. The argument is extended to fetuses, suggesting that if they possess a valuable future, then killing them is equally wrong. The speaker acknowledges the brilliance of this argument while also pointing out potential issues. For instance, if the argument applies to zygotes, it might also apply to sperm and eggs, which could lead to the conclusion that destroying these is morally wrong. Additionally, the argument hinges on the presence of desires and a consciousness that values the future, which fetuses lack until late in pregnancy. This raises questions about the moral permissibility of abortions, as the argument would only apply to fetuses that have developed sufficient brain activity to have desires.

10:02

🔬 Biology, Consciousness, and the Value of the Future

The final paragraph challenges the application of the 'future like ours' argument to fetuses by distinguishing between biological existence and conscious experience. It argues that only entities with unified consciousness can have a valuable future. The paragraph points out that biology alone does not value the future since cells are replaced over time and do not have desires or consciousness. The argument suggests that abortion might be more akin to birth control since it prevents the development of a unified consciousness rather than taking away an existing valuable future. The paragraph concludes by noting that the argument has serious problems but is an interesting philosophical exploration, and the speaker intends to discuss pro-choice arguments in the next video.

Keywords

💡Pro-life

Pro-life is a term used to describe individuals or arguments that oppose abortion and advocate for the protection of human life from the moment of conception. In the video, the presenter discusses a pro-life argument that they find fascinating, despite personally identifying as pro-choice. The argument is presented as a compelling one that is often repeated in textbooks discussing abortion.

💡Pro-choice

Pro-choice refers to the belief that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health, including the choice to have an abortion. The presenter identifies as pro-choice, indicating a personal stance that contrasts with the pro-life argument they are analyzing.

💡Abortion

Abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy. It is a central theme in the video, as the argument presented is used to discuss the ethics of abortion. The video script delves into the moral and philosophical aspects of abortion rights.

💡Right to life

The 'right to life' is a philosophical and legal principle that asserts that every human being has an inherent right to life, which should be protected. In the context of the video, the discussion revolves around whether a fetus has a right to life, which is a contentious issue in the abortion debate.

💡Fetus

A fetus is the term used to describe a developing human from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy until birth. In the video, the presenter asks the audience to consider the moral status of a fetus in relation to the argument about the wrongness of killing.

💡Suicidal teenager

The video script uses the example of a suicidal teenager to illustrate the concept of a valuable future being taken away by death. This is part of the argument that killing is wrong because it robs a person of their future experiences and joys.

💡Valuable future like ours (VFLO)

The 'valuable future like ours' argument posits that killing is wrong because it deprives a person of a valuable future. This concept is central to the pro-life argument presented in the video, suggesting that if a fetus has a valuable future, then killing it (through abortion) is morally wrong.

💡Consciousness

Consciousness, in the video, is discussed in relation to the capacity for desires and experiences, which are integral to having a valuable future. The argument suggests that only entities with a unified consciousness can have a valuable future, which raises questions about the moral status of a fetus before a certain level of brain development.

💡Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. The video discusses how the VFLO argument does not make euthanasia morally wrong, as it is based on the presence or absence of a valuable future, rather than the sanctity of human life itself.

💡Reductio argument

A reductio argument is a form of reasoning used to show that a certain proposition must be false by demonstrating that it leads to an absurd or unacceptable conclusion. In the video, the presenter suggests that if the VFLO argument implies that killing sperm and eggs is wrong, it might be seen as a reductio ad absurdum, indicating a flaw in the argument.

💡Non-occurrent beliefs

Non-occurrent beliefs are beliefs that a person holds but are not currently in their conscious thought. The video uses the concept to argue that even a comatose person, who may not be thinking anything at the moment, still has beliefs and desires that are not currently occurrent, which are relevant to the discussion of the right to life.

Highlights

Introduction to the 'future like ours' argument in the context of pro-life debates.

Acknowledgment of personal pro-choice stance while discussing a pro-life argument.

Discussion of the common ground between pro-life and pro-choice views on the right to life.

Presentation of five different individuals to consider in the abortion debate: fetus, infant, suicidal teenager, temporarily comatose adult, and conscious adult.

Exploration of what property makes killing wrong for individuals B through E, excluding the fetus.

Argument that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future.

Critique of the idea that killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer.

Consideration of the possibility of painless killing and its moral implications.

Identification of the 'valuable future like ours' as the key property that makes killing wrong.

Application of the 'valuable future like ours' argument to the moral status of fetuses.

Critique of the argument's implications for the moral status of sperm and ova.

Discussion of the development of desires and consciousness in fetuses and its relevance to the argument.

Argument that only a unified consciousness can have a valuable future, challenging the application to fetuses.

Comparison of the moral implications of abortion to birth control based on the development of consciousness.

Identification of potential problems with the 'valuable future like ours' argument.

Preview of upcoming discussion on strong pro-choice arguments and concluding remarks.

Transcripts

this is one of my favorite pro-life

arguments now again I'm pro-choice

personally but I think this argument is

fascinating and you will see it repeated

in every textbook that talks about

abortion it is really really a great

argument and the guy that presented Don

Mark was a really nice guy I think he's

still around

um

let me say a little bit about the

argument

Marquis asked us to think about uh five

different individuals so think about a

fetus think about an infant think about

a suicidal teenager teenager who wants

to commit suicide think about a

temporarily comatose adult somebody

who's in a combat way will wake up and

then think about you or me okay so think

of those individual different people

um now people who defend

um abortion right or who criticize

abortion rights or pro-life people and

pro-choice people

um disagree on the right to life with

fetuses so remember I said fetuses

infant suicidal teenager temporarily

comatose adult you or me so they

disagree on the right to lack of fetuses

but they typically agree on the all the

right to life for B through e the infant

the suicidal teenager the temporarily

comatose adult and you or me so they

agree on that some people might disagree

on infant but you get for the most part

people agree that infants suicidal

teenagers temporarily comatose adults

you or me we all have a right to life

and then the people they disagree about

fetuses whether fetuses have a right to

life so darmark was asked a question

what property does the the other ones

I'm going to say B3 B through e so a and

fetuses B infant C suicidal teenagers D

temporarily come toast adults EU or me

what feature what property does B

through e possess that makes killing

them wrong so what is the wrongness of

killing so he's got not even going to

talk about abortion in the first part of

his paper he's going to talk about

the wrongness of killing in general so

he says if something let's call it a so

a fetuses have that property whatever

property that b through e possesses then

we have a good reason to think that

killing the fetus is wrong so he's going

to try to find a property a feature of

infants suicidal teenagers to earlier

comatose people you or me he's going to

try to find a common feature of all of

them that makes it wrong to kill them

and then he's going to say if fetuses

have that property then it must be wrong

to kill them too and you have to admit

this is an ingenious way of thinking

about

this issue so

he starts going through various ideas

about what makes killing wrong so he

says look killing is not wrong because

he said some people might think that

killing is wrong because it brutalizes

the killer right it makes the killer a

brute but we know that there's more

wrong with killing than it makes me

indifferent to human suffering right

that it's something that done to a

person right it's not something that's

just about me

um that would make that all the

wrongness of killing just about that it

hurts my conscience or makes me a worse

person of course that's ridiculous right

um so he says it's not because it

brutalizes killer it's not because it

hurts somebody else

um we can imagine a

murder of somebody that's quite Pleasant

right we could put in some nice gas that

makes them go to sleep it smells really

good and then kill them in a painless

way do an injection I guess all right I

guess it's possible or just through the

gas in my a pleasant death right you can

imagine that so it's not because it

causes pain

what he says after he gives lots and

lots of different examples and I think

this this makes a lot of sense he says

it takes something from the person and

what it takes from the person killing is

wrong because it takes a valuable future

from the person it's robbery it's it

robs them of all their future

experiences all their Joys all their

projects all of everything that they've

yet to experience it's the ultimate

robbery it takes away from that person

their valuable future and so this is

often called the valuable future like

ours argument the V flow argument or

some people just call it the flow

argument the future like ours argument

so the valuable future like ours the the

future like ours argument the wrongness

of killing and I think there's something

right about that right that's what it

seems like I mean you can imagine

a person that you know nobody loves

everybody hates he's gonna eat worms

um and he gets killed and nobody cares

about it so it's not but we still think

it's wrong to kill that person not

because other people are affected maybe

nobody's affected maybe they hate the

person right but we still think it's

wrong to that person and the wrongness

of Killing Them seems to be in that what

it takes away from them in the future

um and I think it looks like at least

that this does tend to

um tend to identify something that's

wrong with killing so the argument is

that killing is wrong because it takes

away the valuable future for the victim

fetuses this is the second premise

fetuses have a valuable future therefore

it's wrong to kill a fetus and you have

to admit that's a brilliant genius

argument right it looks like he's found

good reason to think that killing is

wrong

and he says look so it's wrong to kill

an infant because it robs them of their

valuable future it's wrong to kill

a a suicidal teenager because you know

even though this teenager wants to kill

himself or herself at that point

themselves at that point

um

we all kind of feel really bad sometimes

when we get over it most people who

wanted to kill themselves at one point

in their life are glad that they didn't

do it in a later point of life and so it

would take away their valuable future

even if they wanted it at the time it

takes away the valuable future of

somebody who's temporarily in a coma

um can't I mean it might not hurt them

for us to unplug them and have them die

but it would Rob them of their future

um that the things that they value in

the future and it's wrong to kill you

and me so it looks like he does capture

the wrongness of killing and it looks

like he's identified maybe

um that fetuses have that same property

they have a valuable feature too so if

it's wrong to kill you or me because it

robs is a valuable feature then it's

wrong to kill the fetus because it robs

it of its valuable feature and I I think

there's something to be said about this

argument it does seem to capture the

wrongness of killing in generally and

then it avoids the pitfalls of other

abortion arguments so some abortion

arguments would make uh something like

uh euthanasia wrong you know when you

let somebody die passive euthanasia when

you let somebody die

take them off the machines and stuff but

generally we think that's okay but some

right to life arguments like human life

as sanctity and so it's wrong to kill uh

human life some arguments like that

would make it wrong and this doesn't do

that because if somebody legitimately

doesn't have a valuable future in front

of them if it's just pain and suffering

then it seems like we could allow for

things like euthanasia it also doesn't

rely on people being Homo Sapien aliens

can have the flow right aliens can have

a valuable future like ours so to

explain the wrongness of killing E.T you

might not know etegs a long time ago but

fill in some alien that you do know

um uh it doesn't rely on that and

doesn't rely on potential persons and

all of those kind of things so it seems

to avoid a lot of the problems of the

other anti-abortion arguments now that's

not to say there aren't some problems

with it I think it's a really smart

argument but I think there are some

problems

um it's hard to see how this if it

applies to zygotes that it doesn't apply

to sperm and OVA right and so that sperm

all it would take to have a valuable

future is uh you know to be joined with

an OVA so I'm not sure and all the OVA

would need is to be joined with a sperm

to have a valuable future so it seems

like it would make killing sperm and

killing OVA uh wrong as well and so we

might call that a reductio argument we

might say well if this leads to us

saying that it's wrong to kill a sperm

and egg then there must be something

wrong with it right

um it also has another problem about our

ideal desires the desires that we would

have about the future if it was

undisordered by depression

um it seems like our ideal desires are

what creates a moral obligation not to

kill us

um so when you think about the suicidal

teenager like I was mentioned before

um it's what we would value if we

weren't depressed or something like that

it seems like we have to have those

desires it's those desires that need to

be honored by not taking something away

but fetuses don't have any desires until

there's some kind of pattern brain

activity in the cerebral cortex we know

that doesn't really not any kind of

recognizable brain patterns uh occurred

before 25 to 32 weeks

and that would make the majority of

abortions morally permissible and only a

few impermissible if that were the case

which is isn't the point of this

argument this argument is supposed to

um

show that abortion most abortions are

wrong or why abortion is immoral is what

it's called

so um it looks like you know there is a

property that infants that may be

infants I don't know but at least

suicidal teenagers uh temporarily come

with those people all those people have

these ideal desires so you might be

thinking well a comatose person doesn't

have any desires but there's a

difference between what we call

um your uh the belief that you have your

current beliefs the beliefs that you

have in your head right now and you're

not a current belief so for instance all

of you believe that George Washington is

on the one dollar bill now you didn't

have that in your that thought in your

mind before I said it maybe it did I I

doubt you had that thought in your mind

right as I was speaking but you did

after so that's a non-occurrent belief

that's a belief you have that's not in

your head at the time and so when your

comatose patient person you had all your

beliefs are not occurrent and so you

have a lot of non-occurrent beliefs but

you still have beliefs and desires and

those kinds of things they're just

non-occurrent and so um a fetus though

until the brain is developed to a

certain point it doesn't seem like they

can have a current or non-occurrent

beliefs or desires and so they're

importantly different than the other

things and then a kind of related point

a problem to this is that biology

doesn't have a valuable future like ours

only a unified conscious does so think

about all the cells in your body

um they'll be replaced over your

lifetime now brain cells are a little

bit stickier

but if you're you know over 30 it's

pretty safe to say you can you can

double check this with the biologist but

it's pretty safe to to say maybe there's

some brain cells that are around but

it's pretty safe to say that all of the

cells in your bodies have been replaced

maybe there's a few that haven't but

almost all of them have been replaced so

the thing that was you as a fetus

there's probably nothing of that

existing now no cells that exist now

um and so biology isn't what we say has

a valuable future biology doesn't value

anything cells don't value anything it's

our Consciousness that avows anything so

um if it's the Consciousness that has

the valuable future this would indicate

that it's only wrong to kill things with

these unified consciousnesses these

things that have a valuable future that

that can value something in general and

it looks like abortion then keeps a

unified Consciousness from coming into

existence so it's more like birth

control

um so even if we say Marcus is right

that the wrongness of killing is that it

steals somebody's valuable future we

might argue that a fetus doesn't have a

valuable future because a fetus is at

least before 25 weeks it doesn't the

capacity of having desires and it's only

that Consciousness that has a valuable

future and maybe they you know

Consciousness probably works like a

faulty dimmer switch where it you know

pops on and off

um

and so they don't have a unified

Consciousness where they see themselves

as themselves and so maybe it's only a

unified Consciousness that can have a

valuable future at least it seems a lot

more

um credible that only unified

Consciousness has a valuable future than

mere biology mere biology doesn't seem

to have a valuable future because all of

it's replaced uh at some point in your

life or 90 something percent of it's

replaced at some point in your life so

that valuable that doesn't have a

valuable future in the same way so

anyway uh that is uh his future like

ours argument and I think some serious

problems with it uh but I think it's an

interesting argument and so uh in the

next video I'm going to try to cover two

uh strong pro-choice arguments and then

we'll make something uh concluding

remarks